Sola Scriptura II (White vs Matatics)

It is good to be with you. I come from Phoenix, Arizona, where today was 105 degrees, so you can all be thankful that you have such beautiful weather here this evening.

I'm going back to it tomorrow, and I'm looking forward to it, actually. Some of us are rather strange folks. If you were here last year, how many of you were here for the debate last year?

That's only about a third. Jerry was here, good. Over and over again, as we discussed the

Marian Doctrines last year, we came to the conclusion that one of the things we needed to deal with was the issue of ultimate authority, the issue of where we derive religious truth.

The issue of Sola Scriptura has been, in my experience, the particular focus of the new generation of Roman Catholic apologists.

In fact, there's a book out edited by Patrick Madrid called Surprised by Truth. In that book, eight of the eleven converts to Roman Catholicism mention

Sola Scriptura as having a major part in their conversion to Roman Catholicism.

So it's been my experience that Roman Catholic apologists sort of feel like this is their big issue.

In actuality, I think that it is not. I believe that when we understand what

Sola Scriptura is, and when we recognize the opposing claim that's being made, which is rarely brought forward openly, and that is the claim to authority on the part of the

Roman Catholic Church, that the scriptures speak very plainly as to how we would decide this issue.

Not only that, but the early church fathers, I believe, spoke very plainly on this issue. The great

Bishop of Jerusalem, Cyril, in instructing new believers, individuals who are just coming into the faith, uttered these words, quote, in regard to the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not the least part may be handed on without the holy scriptures.

Do not be led astray by winning words and clever arguments. Even to me, who tell you these things, do not give ready belief, unless you receive from the holy scriptures the proof of the things which

I announce. The salvation which we believe is not proved from clever reasoning, but from the holy scriptures.

And another theodoretic, one of the early fathers of the church, wrote a book in which he presented a dialogue between an orthodox believer and one who had been led astray.

And at one point in the conversation, he has one of his imaginary disputants utter these words, quote, the doctrine of the church should be proven, not announced.

Therefore show that the scriptures teach these things, end quote.

That's my position. That's what I believe. I come this evening in the spirit of this ancient writer, not merely to announce to you some doctrine on my own authority, but to prove the truth of the doctrine of sola scriptura and to show that the scriptures do, in point of fact, teach their own sufficiency to act as the sole infallible rule of faith for the church.

And I contrast my position with that found in the popular Roman Catholic writer, John O 'Brien, who has written, quote, great as is our reverence for the

Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe, end quote.

I hope Mr. Matitix will tell us if he likewise used the Bible as John O 'Brien did. Now there are two positions being presented this evening, sola scriptura and what

I call sola ecclesia. That is, I believe that the Bible is the ultimate and only infallible authority in the

Christian faith, while Rome claims that she, in fact, is the ultimate infallible authority, hence sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia.

Now you might say, well, I'm not sure that Rome makes that claim, but I'd like you to reason with me for just for a moment. Rome claims that she has ultimate authority to define the content of scripture, that is, to determine the canon of scripture, what is and what is not scripture.

She likewise claims the ultimate and infallible authority to determine the meaning and interpretation of scripture as well.

Likewise, she claims ultimate infallible authority to determine the extent of tradition, whatever that is.

That is, she and she alone can tell you what is and what is not true tradition.

And of course, she claims the ultimate authority to determine what tradition does and does not teach.

Hence, while she claims to be the servant of the scriptures and tradition, in reality, she is the master determining what scripture is and what it means, what tradition is and what it means.

If you define those two sources and you claim to be the only one who knows what those two sources say, you cannot be logically subservient to those two sources.

Now, while I have tried to get Roman Catholic apologists to defend the positive claim that Rome has ultimate authority in religious matters,

I have yet to get anyone to actually defend Rome's claims on these subjects. Now, it is vital to remember throughout this debate, because it can be a complex debate, we are talking about ultimate authorities in the field of knowledge and religious truth.

It is important to remember throughout the debate that there are two sides being presented, for sometimes that can be lost in all the details.

Now, the doctrine of sola scriptura is really rather straightforward, but in my experience, it is rarely, rarely represented accurately by modern

Roman Catholic apologists, both in debate as well as in their written documents. Sola scriptura briefly stated is simply this, because the scriptures are the only example of God -breathed revelation in the possession of the church, they form the only infallible rule of faith for the church.

In other words, since the Bible is, and the Greek term that Paul uses in 2 Timothy 3 .16 is theanoustos,

God -breathed, then it provides to us the very voice of God.

Remember in Matthew chapter 22, verse 31, when the Lord Jesus held people accountable to what they read in scripture as God speaking to them, he said to those individuals, have you not read what

God spoke to you saying? The scriptures are God speaking to us, they are

God -breathed. God's voice can admit of no higher or equal authority.

It is the ultimate authority in all things, for God cannot refer to any higher authority than himself to establish the truthfulness of what he says.

It is, by definition, an absolute authority. Now, sola scriptura denies that there is another infallible rule of faith in the church.

There may be other rules, but they are not infallible, and they are subject to the correction of the highest authority, and that is scripture.

As Augustine put it, quote, what more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For holy scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.

Therefore, I should not teach you anything else except to expound to you the words of the teacher.

And again elsewhere, he put it this way, quote, neither dare one agree with Catholic bishops, if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical scriptures of God, end quote.

Now, it would probably help us this evening to know what sola scriptura is not. What isn't it?

Well, first of all, it is not a denial that God's word has at times been in oral form during those periods of inscripturation or revelation.

One of the most common errors in Roman Catholic apologists is to point to times when scripture was being given as if that is normative for the church and use that to deny sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura refers to the normative situation of the church, not the exceptional situation that takes place when you have apostles and prophets on the earth who are giving revelation and scripture.

Roman Catholicism agrees with us that revelation has ceased in the sense of special revelation, canonical revelation and scripture.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in leading and guiding the church.

We are not saying that the Holy Spirit is not important in understanding scripture. In fact, all of the historic

Protestant confessions confess the fact that outside of the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, we will never be obedient to or have understanding of those scriptures.

Thirdly, it is not an assertion that the Bible contains all knowledge. Over and over again,

Roman Catholic apologists cite John 21 -25, and they cite the passages that say, well, if everything that Jesus had done had been written down, the world itself could not contain the books that would be written, as if that is somehow relevant to sola scriptura.

Karl Keating does this in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism. But all that demonstrates is that Karl Keating doesn't know what sola scriptura means.

It is not the case that you must know the color of the eyes of all the disciples, the wardrobe that they wore, the menu at all of the apostolic meals for scripture to be the sufficient and sole infallible rule of faith of the church.

It is not a claim that the scriptures are exhaustive, but that they are sufficient, and there is a difference between the two.

It is not an assertion that we can learn nothing from the generations that have come before us.

It is not a claim that we have to go back 2 ,000 years and reinvent the wheel with each new generation.

We can learn many things from the godly men and what they have done in the church over past generations, but the ultimate authority for every generation is always the scriptures, never the church.

There are also a lot of common misunderstandings about the doctrine that we should dismiss immediately. For example, the single worst argument against sola scriptura goes something like this.

Sola scriptura is the blueprint for anarchy. Look at what has happened. There are 23 ,000

Protestant denominations. Sola scriptura is an utter failure. I've heard that argument over and over and over again.

And yet, if we think about that argument for just a few moments, we realize it is a self -refuting argument and it is an inconsistent argument.

The misuse of a sufficient source is not a valid argument against that source.

There are many people today who are purchasing computers. And I love seeing a person who has never seen a computer before when they get their first one.

It's sort of comical, really, as they look at that thing and they start looking for the on switch and they're not really sure what to do with this thing and there's all these cables sticking out of it.

And it's somewhat funny when you've worked with computers for a long time to watch a person who has never seen one of these things before.

And they all come with manuals. But how many of you have read all the manuals that came with your computer? There's a man back there who's lying.

Get that person right there. Now that manual will tell you everything you need to know.

But how many, never had a manual A .M .M. before. But how many people misuse the manual?

They skip over sections. They ignore sections. They only read the sections that have the pictures in them.

Whatever it might be, they misuse the source. If they followed the manuals, the thing would work right.

But most people don't follow the manual. So what are you supposed to do? Say that the reason that people are confused about how their computer works is because the manuals aren't good enough?

Well, if you haven't read it and you didn't read all of it and you didn't take it in context, how can you say that? Well, in the exact same way.

Just because people pick and choose sections of the Bible to believe and which not to believe, just because people bring in outside authorities over the

Bible is not the fault of the Bible. It's the fault of the user. It's the fault of the person coming to the scriptures.

And just because there are people who do not want to take the Bible in its fullness, do not want to read everything that the scriptures say, does not mean that the

Bible in itself is insufficient to accomplish that task. But most obviously,

Sola Scriptura, the doctrine, does not claim that there will be an absolute unanimity of opinion.

There were errors and heresies in the days of the apostles. Just as it would have been ridiculous to say that the apostles were insufficient leaders in the church just because errors and heresies crept in during their ministries, and because men were willing to twist what the apostles taught and wrote to their own destruction, so it is without merit to say that since men misuse the scriptures today, those scriptures are insufficient as the infallible rule of faith.

Such an assertion assumes that the rule of faith is supposed to do away with the sinfulness and rebellion of man, the errors men make due to traditions and prejudices, and make men incapable of error, and that's not what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura says.

Historic Protestants have always asserted that there are difficult passages in the Bible, things that are hard to understand, that we must apply our minds and hearts to be diligent students of the word.

Protestants believe that God will hold each man and woman accountable and responsible for his truth.

We will not be able to say, well, such and such a person told me to believe that. No, God will hold us accountable.

And finally, this argument is very bad because if you simply look at the Roman Catholic Church today, you will find a tremendous amount of disagreement and divergence amongst those who name the name of Rome.

Does that mean the magisterium is insufficient because it does not result in absolute unanimity?

Mr. Mattocks disagrees with even other Roman Catholic apologists. Does that mean that the magisterium and the pronouncements, the infallible pronouncements of the church are insufficient because they don't produce unanimous opinion?

Well, obviously not. What we're talking about this evening is that everyone has ultimate authorities.

My Mormon friends, my Jehovah's Witness friends down there not too far from here have ultimate authorities too.

When Mr. Mattocks made a decision to embrace the authority of Rome, that was a fallible decision.

He could have chosen another ultimate authority. He could have chosen another system of belief.

When he made that decision, it was a fallible decision and hence everything that comes after that can be no more certain than the decision he made in embracing that authority.

Such a decision of embracing authority outside of Scripture is not to be found within Scripture itself.

Matthew 18 is often misused to make the church the final source of truth. Instead, I point out to you we find

John commending the church at Ephesus in the book of Revelation for testing those who claim to be apostles.

And just as the Bereans had done in Acts chapter 17, when the apostles come preaching God's truth, they search the

Scriptures daily to see whether those things are actually so. Now someone may well say, but Mr.

White, the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. And I can only say, amen, it most certainly is.

I love the church of Jesus Christ. But what does a pillar and foundation do?

The pillar and foundation holds something else up. And what does the church do?

The church holds up the truth of God for all men to see and proclaims that truth to all men.

But she never confuses herself with the truth itself. The church is the body of Christ and she hears

Christ speaking to her in his word. She never substitutes herself for the voice of her master.

Only the Scriptures are theanustos. The church is never described as being

God -breathed, but God's word is. Now Mr.

Matics, in the last time we debated this issue, claimed that tradition, whatever that might be, and I'll let him define his particular viewpoint on it, is inspired.

And in taking that particular viewpoint, he stands in the same tradition that you find, for example, the

Council of Trent. The Council of Trent, the original draft of the document on tradition in Scripture, said that God's revelation and God's truth comes to us in two forms.

It comes partly, it's called partum partum, partly in the written Scriptures and partly in the oral traditions.

Hence, if you only have the written Scriptures, you don't have everything that God intends us to have. You have to have the oral traditions along with.

Now there are many Roman Catholic apologists today who don't hold that viewpoint. They no longer hold to that particular perspective that was in the majority of the

Council of Trent. But if he still holds, as he did a few years ago, that tradition is inspired, then he would probably want to refer to 2

Thessalonians 2 .15 as one of the passages that is frequently used to attempt to present some foundation for the idea that we need to have an infallible magisterium in the

Roman Catholic Church to have everything God would have us to know. Now 2 Thessalonians 2 .15,

if you're not familiar with it, says, so then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

And so the argument goes like this. These traditions are presented by word of mouth, orally, and by letter from us.

And here you have a command to hold to these traditions. And as I recall, Mr. Matitick said,

Mr. White, why don't you keep this command any longer? Where are your oral traditions?

However, if we look at the passage, we discover that this is a great misuse of the passage. First of all, there is only one body of truth in view here.

It is one set of traditions delivered two ways. By preaching, when Paul was a monk to Thessalonians, and by letter, that is, 1

Thessalonians. The entire church at Thessalonica had already been taught these items.

These are not, then, teachings that are limited to the bishops, but are generally known truths that every person in the church knew and believed.

Hence, any claim that the oral component contains anything other than what is found in the written component requires the defender of such a position to prove from the writings of the early church that these things were generally known and believed by the

Christian people. We will see that when we look at the doctrines that have been infallibly and clearly defined by Rome on the basis of tradition, that these doctrines are uniformly, utterly unknown in the early church.

But all this involves a gross misreading of the text. Paul is in no way talking about some extra -scriptural revelation in this passage.

Instead, when we read the passage in its own immediate context, we find he is talking about something much more easily defined, my friends, the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul taught the Thessalonians the gospel, both in person as well as by his first letter to the Thessalonians.

This can be seen by the fact that the term Paul uses when exhorting us to stand firm in these traditions is also used by Paul in 1

Corinthians 16, 13 when he says to stand firm in the faith. Paul is not giving us a command here to hold to oral traditions.

He is giving us a command to hold to the gospel itself. I'd like to ask some questions of us in regards to other

Christians who have lived before us. One of my favorite individuals from church history is the great

Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. In fact, we went down, Pastor Moore took us down to Manhattan, my wife and I, and we looked at a number of things down there.

We went into the large cathedral and we looked around. And one of the statues I saw was of Athanasius.

And it struck me that Athanasius was standing there holding closely to his heart the scriptures themselves.

And there is a reason for that. Athanasius stood against the majority of the established church in his day.

When the Council of Nicaea was finished, this was not the end of the argument.

And the vast majority of the church of his day turned from the deity of Christ to an

Arian position. He was even disfellowshipped by Liberius, the Bishop of Rome, under pressure from the emperor.

He was kicked out of his church five times. One time, 5 ,000 soldiers coming in the front door and he going out the back.

And yet, he would not give in. Hence the phrase, Athanasius contra mundum,

Athanasius against the world. But why did he do that? We are forever in his debt for his faithfulness.

But why did he do that? Because of what he said. Let me quote to you his words.

Let this then Christ -loving man be our offering to you just for a rudimentary sketch and outline and a short compass of the faith of Christ and of his divine appearing usward.

But you taking occasion by this, if you light upon the text of the scriptures, by genuinely applying your mind to them, will learn from them more completely and clearly the exact detail of what we have said.

For they were spoken and written by God through men who spoke for God." Rather than finding

O 'Brien's idea that scripture is not a safe guide as to what we are to believe, Athanasius said, quote, for the tokens of scripture are more exact as drawn from scripture than from other sources, end quote.

These other sources included church councils such as that of Nicaea, which Athanasius defended strongly.

And he also said, but since holy scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore recommending to those who desire to know more of these matters to read the divine word,

I now hasten to set before you that which most claims attention and for the sake of which principally

I have written these things. And he also said these words, and I believe exactly as he.

For indeed the holy and God -breathed scriptures are self -sufficient for the preaching of the truth.

Now how did that Protestant end up in the church so long ago? He stands against the majority of the church.

He stands against councils. And he says, no, I will not give in on the deity of Christ and the reason is simple, it's not what the scriptures teach.

What is his ultimate authority? And my closing comments here,

I'd like to challenge Jerry to a few things. I'd like to challenge him to prove the existence of another infallible rule of faith by tracing some of the doctrines that have been defined by the

Roman Catholic church on the basis of that tradition. Possibly he can pick up where we left off a year ago and trace for us the bodily assumption of Mary through church history to the apostles.

Possibly if he uses 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, he would be willing to do that. I'd also like to point out that a belief in such doctrines as the bodily assumption or papal infallibility is the clearest indication of sola ecclesia, the idea that the church is the ultimate authority for neither the

Bible nor tradition teach this. Hence, why is it that a

Roman Catholic believes these things? Because his ultimate authority, which is the church, tells him to do so.

And I close with these words. The Lord Jesus, when encountering individuals who claimed they had traditions that were in fact divine in origin and were passed down orally over centuries, said the following.

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men. He was also saying to them, you are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

For Moses said, honor your father and your mother. And he who speaks evil of father and mother is to be put to death. But you say, if a man says to his father or his mother, whatever

I have that would help you is core bound, that is given to God, you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother.

Thus, invalidating the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down and you do many such things as that.

Please remember, folks, the Jews claim their traditions came from God, were given to Moses, were passed down orally outside of scripture.

And Jesus said, if anyone comes to you and claims they have a tradition, even if they say it's divine, you have a way of testing it.

And you'll be held responsible for testing it. And you test it by that which is God -breathed.

You test it by the scriptures. Thank you. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

I'm grateful that Mr. White, for whom I have a great affection after these many years of debate, cited that passage as pivotal to our time together tonight.

And the fact that he took a significant portion of his time to attempt to deflect the force of that passage indicates that he is well aware that this passage poses, at least in the hands of a

Catholic apologist, a potential threat to the concept of sola scriptura.

I'm also grateful that he quoted St. Mark, chapter 7, verse 8.

That, of course, was 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, verse 15. And in St.

Mark, chapter 7, verse 8, our Lord says, neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men. I could not agree more with what

Chris Arnson said in introducing this evening. That our purpose here is to pursue the truth, to proclaim the truth, and to do so in love.

I am here because by the grace of God, I love my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whom

I encountered as a young man of 14 who was neither Protestant nor Catholic through a

Billy Graham crusade telecast, and to whose sovereign rule over my life

I committed myself by the grace of God at the age of 14. I vowed at that time that I would follow

Jesus Christ wherever He leads. And I vowed that I would follow His truth and His word wherever that leads.

And I made a solemn vow to God that I would be a Bible -believing

Christian to my dying day and by the grace of God throughout eternity. And it was in obedience to that summons of Jesus Christ to follow

His word, His truth, and to reject the traditions of men, of mere men, that as astounding as this might sound to your evangelical -ers, if you're

Protestants this evening, that I made very anguished and agonizing, but absolutely rewarding decision to reject, among many others, this particular tradition of men known as sola scriptura.

My entire presentation tonight can be simply summed up in the one sentence that every

Bible -believing Christian here, Jerry Mattox, James White, and everybody in this room, whether you call yourself

Catholic or Protestant, that everybody in this room ought to reject sola scriptura for one simple reason.

It is a tradition of men. It is not the word of God.

There is no statement in the Scriptures themselves, and Mr.

White so far has not given us one. He certainly will have a chance to attempt that if he can in his rebuttal periods or cross -examination or perhaps closing statement.

There is not a single statement in the word of God written, sacred

Scripture, that says that Scripture itself is the only word of God, that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

The motto is sola scriptura. Scripture alone is God's inspired infallible word, and that statement is not to be found.

So if you believe in sola scriptura, then you have to disbelieve in it by a very straightforward linear logic.

In other words, if your principle tonight is I only believe what is taught in the pages of sacred

Scripture, then you cannot believe in sola scriptura because that is in fact not taught.

Now Mr. White has already, even in his opening statement, engaged in a very subtle and sneaky shifting of the burden of proof.

He has said, Mr. Maddox perhaps can demonstrate to us that there is another infallible source.

I would be happy to do that in another debate on the authority of the church or the authority of sacred tradition.

He said perhaps we can pick up where we left off last year and let's discuss Sumerian doctrines.

I am not going to succumb to the temptation he has placed before me to distract you, whom

I am here to serve, from the central issue. Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

The burden of proof in this debate, we have had many debates and sometimes the burden of proof is upon Mr.

White, sometimes upon myself. A debate holds forth a proposition. It puts out a statement and says

I am going to prove this is true versus I am going to prove that it is false. The statement tonight is that Scripture itself teaches that it is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Mr. White made that statement. I wrote it down verbatim as he stated in his opening presentation. That makes

Mr. White the one who is the affirmative, who has to shoulder the burden of proof.

Can he give us one Bible verse that in fact teaches that? If he does, then he will win this debate and I will admit it and I will gladly admit defeat.

In fact, I will go further than that. Although it may be difficult for those of you perhaps who maybe don't know me personally or have a distrust of Roman Catholics in general and I can understand why you might if you have not met any that seem to really believe the

Bible, I hereby vow to you as God is my witness that if sola scriptura, which is the formal principle of the

Reformation, can be established tonight, if it can be shown to be true from the

Bible itself, which I, like every faithful Catholic, accept as the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.

On that Mr. White and I are in agreement. The Catholic Church's teaching on what the

Bible is, is exactly identical to the teaching of any conservative Protestant.

That it is God's inspired, Theopneustos, as Mr. White reminded us,

St. Paul calls it in 2 Timothy 3 .16, it is God's inspired and therefore infallible and inerrant word.

That this is God's word we do not deny. That is not the issue tonight. The issue is, is this the only medium that God himself has selected to convey and to communicate his word in an infallible fashion to his people?

And the biblical testimony is clearly no. But if Mr. White can show us that the Bible does teach sola scriptura, then

I will gladly admit that the Catholic Church is wrong. And I will gladly come back to evangelical, reformed,

Christianity. That is how seriously I take his challenge and that is how seriously

I take the teaching of the Bible. I will submit to what the Bible itself states. But I know from having had many of these debates and from having read

Protestant literature, that I do not believe Mr. White is going to be able to produce a verse which really teaches this.

Which says that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith in practice. That is what sola means. Now after endlessly frustrated attempts on the part of Protestant apologists to come up with such a verse, they then shifted the ground again and say, you know we don't have to show you anywhere in the

Bible that the Bible is the only rule of faith. We simply have to show that the Bible is sufficient. Well that is not what sola means.

But I will even meet Mr. White on that lowered level. If he wants to change the rules of the game and say

I am not for sola scriptura in the original meaning of what the word sola scriptura means, I am simply for the sufficiency of scripture.

Then I ask him to provide even a verse that teaches us that. And there is no such verse to be found.

What do we find when we look at the testimony of the two testaments that are our common ground this evening?

We find that again and again the word of God is conveyed and communicated in ways other than a written one.

And Mr. White admitted that in his presentation. He has to admit it because it is by God's oral word that he created the world.

He didn't write it on some magic slate or some cosmic blackboard. And yet when he dictated that divine decalogue ten times stating in Genesis 1 as recorded there, and God said, and God said, let there be light, let the animals be fruitful and multiply and so forth.

In each of those cases it was God's word. Omnipotent, inspired, authoritative, absolutely trustworthy.

And yet it wasn't written down. So too was God's word as it came to Adam and Eve, to Cain and Abel, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, to Noah before those patriarchs.

And yet in none of these instances, as far as we can tell from the record, was it written down. Even when it begins to be written down at the time of Moses, it is clear from the five books of Moses that God revealed himself to Moses and stated things to Moses that are not completely recorded in the books that we have by the names of Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Numbers and Exodus and Genesis.

We know that the word of God was passed on down from Moses to Joshua and through a whole line of prophets, many of whom did not write books.

The prophet Elijah could say to his generation, thus saith the Lord. And he didn't have to simply produce a scroll for that word of God to be taken seriously and to see that it was binding upon the consciences of its listeners.

When we get to the New Testament, God's modus operandi has not changed one whit because the word becomes flesh, not book, but flesh and dwells among us.

The word of God is first of all the second person of the

Blessed Trinity who became incarnate God in the flesh. And all of his words were inspired, authoritative, and binding upon their conscience.

By those words, he said, his generation would be judged on the last day, even though our

Lord never wrote any of them down. And when at the end of our Lord's ministry had arrived, he did not say, now

I've got to check into some motel somewhere and write everything down carefully or there's no way to transmit this truth in the ages to come to subsequent generations like the people that will be here tonight at this place in Baldwin, New York.

Our Lord selected and sent forth men as the Father had sent him forth and inspired them with his

Spirit and commissioned them to be his mouthpieces in the world. Just as he had sent out the twelve during the earthly ministry and indeed the seventy and said to the seventy, for example, and it applies a fortiori to the twelve in Luke 10, 16, whoever hears you hears me and whoever rejects you rejects me.

So those men, filled with the Holy Spirit, given that teaching office, brought the

Word of God to their generation. It will not be you speaking, he says in St. Matthew's Gospel, but the

Spirit of my Father speaking through you. And so he commands these men to go forth and preach, to go and make disciples of all the nations.

He does not explicitly command them to write. Some of them did write, certainly.

We have St. Matthew and St. John in the original twelve writing Gospels, but ten of the twelve never wrote Gospels. Were they disobedient to our

Lord's words, our Lord's command to pass on the Word of God? They were not. Because they passed it on in oral fashion.

St. Paul, who wrote more of the New Testament than any other apostle, did not restrict the dissemination of doctrine to writing epistles, as again

Mr. White has had to admit. He has to admit it because St. Paul's epistles themselves point to the fact that they are only a subset of a much larger body of teaching.

We read in Acts 20 that he spent three years in Ephesus teaching them night and day, and at the end of that time he could say,

I can leave with my hands clear of your blood, with a clear conscience. I am innocent of the blood of all men, because I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the full counsel of God.

Please turn the tape to side two. Can anyone seriously mathematically maintain that that three year intensive course in Christian doctrine that St.

Paul gave the church at Ephesus can be found, every jot and tittle, in a six page letter to the

Ephesians that we have in the New Testament? Of course not. That letter is inspired, it is infallible, it is inerrant, and I believe it and I would die for it.

But it does not contain the fullness of what St. Paul took three years to teach them.

St. Paul did teach the Thessalonians, as Mr. White reminded us. He quoted from 2

Thessalonians 2 .15, the verse that I began with. And earlier in that very chapter,

St. Paul, in describing the man of sin, says you know that there is someone who restrains him, and I am not going to tell you what that is now, because you remember that when

I was with you, I told you those things. So St. Paul himself explicitly testifies that he would not, for particular reasons in that case, commit to writing an element, a proposition, a fact, that he did convey to them in an oral fashion while he was with them.

St. Paul clearly was not operating according to the principle of Sol Scriptura.

Unless I write it down, they will not know, God's people will not know what this restrainer is.

It is the only sure way to communicate truth. St. Paul did not hold to that view, and that is why he could say, just a few verses after that, that they were to hold fast to all the traditions, whether written or oral.

You see, the Bible itself is a tradition, which is a point I will come back to later on this evening.

The Bible itself is something handed on. I hope that you do not make the mistake that Protestant apologists generally seem to make, when they quote passages like St.

Matthew chapter 15 or St. Mark chapter 7, where our Lord castigates the Pharisees for nullifying the word of God by the traditions of men.

I hope you will not make the silly mistake of thinking that if the traditions of men are condemned, then all tradition is condemned.

Because if that were true, then the Bible itself would be contradicting itself when it says, hold fast to all the traditions.

There are traditions, and there are traditions. There are traditions that merely come from men, uninspired men, and those are to be rejected, our

Lord says in St. Matthew 15 and St. Mark 7, when they contradict the teaching of the word of God.

Of course, the Catholic Church agrees with that 100%. But not all traditions are traditions of men.

Some traditions come from God. They are things passed on, whether by God the

Father in the Old Testament, whether by God the Son during his earthly ministry, or whether by his appointed apostles, such as St.

Paul, when he says, hold fast to the traditions that came from us. Why are those traditions acceptable?

Because they ultimately come from God, and he commands them to pass them on. That command, ladies and gentlemen, is in the

Bible that you and I read tonight. My brothers and sisters in Christ, we do not believe that what the

Bible states, it only states for the original recipients. Well, I'm not a Corinthian, so I don't have to believe, or I don't have to obey what 1 and 2

Corinthians says, or I'm not a Thessalonian, so I don't have to follow those either. We believe that this is

God's word for us, which is why God in his providence has passed it down as a tradition, a traditio, something handed on.

So this command, this command of 2 Thessalonians 2 .15, not only applies to them, but applies to all of God's people.

Or Mr. White is going to stand up here and have to say, well, we can pick and choose which commands in the Bible we can believe. We can say, well, this doesn't apply to us.

Listen again, not to Jerry Maddix, I don't care or rap if you listen or believe any of my opinions tonight, but listen to what

God says to you. Listen Mr. White carefully, and I mean this with love in my heart, and I'm saying to myself,

Jerry Maddix, listen to this. Please listen to this Mr. White, and you listen. Lay aside your

Protestant Catholic skin and just listen to the Bible. Let's assume this is a Bible study, not a

Catholic Protestant debate. Just listen to what God is saying to you through the inspired words of the

Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2 .15. So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

Hold fast to all the apostolic tradition, whether it comes to you in written form, the

Bible, or whether it comes to you in oral form. Hold fast to all of it. It is obvious that when someone says, sola scriptura,

I'll only hold fast to what's written down, that they are disobeying this command. This might be a radical new thought for you tonight.

You might have an immediate knee jerk reaction, but I ask you and I beg of you through the mercy of Jesus Christ to lay aside your

Protestant or Catholic prejudices and ask yourself now, dear

God, am I truly obeying this command? Is sola scriptura, which is not taught in scripture, which is not contrary to what

Mr. White claimed in his opening statement, as I will show in the course of the evening, not taught by the early church fathers, not taught in fact as a principle by anyone until we get to an apostate named

Jan Hus in Bohemia, the so -called morning star of the

Reformation, as Protestant historians dubbed him, and that is taken up by Luther.

It is not taught by the church. It is not taught, it is not defended from sacred scripture.

Sola scriptura is not taught until nearly 15 centuries have elapsed from the time of our

Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles. It is a tradition of men, mere men, and therefore it falls under the condemnation of our

Lord here in Mark 7, 8, which Mr. White himself drew your attention to, and I thank him for that. Do you neglect the commandment of God, in this case

I mean the commandment of 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 to hold fast to all the traditions. Do you neglect the commandment of God by holding to a tradition of men?

That is what Jesus condemns, and that is exactly what the follower of Sola Scriptura does. The other apostles teach the exact same thing.

Twice at the end of his epistles, St. John in 2 John and 3

John says, I have many more things to teach you, but I do not wish to do so with Petonique, but I wish to do so face to face when

I am with you. That is how the apostles primarily passed on the word of God. That is why

St. Paul can say, faith comes by hearing, hearing the word of God in Romans 10 .17.

That is why St. Paul can say again and again to the Thessalonians, I thank God that when you received our preaching, you received it as the word of God, the preaching, and not merely as the words of men.

St. Paul can say to Timothy, the things which I taught you in the presence of many witnesses, the things that I said to you, pass on to those reliable men after you, the things that I said to you that were heard by the presence of many witnesses.

Hold to the sound form of words which I taught you. We have an obligation to hold fast to all the word of God.

The Catholic Church agrees tonight that the word of God is our supreme rule of faith and practice.

Everything must bow to it. Everything must conform to it. If anything can be shown contrary to the word of God, then it must be rejected by every

Christian who loves the word of God. But the

Protestant error is to take the phrase word of God and equate it with the Bible. I agree that the word of God is our supreme rule of faith and practice, but the word of God I have already shown you is not something that can be interchanged with the phrase the

Bible, because the word of God preceded the Bible in creation and to Adam and to Noah.

The word of God travels alongside the Bible in the preaching of Elijah and other inspired prophets.

The word of God preached as he lived among us, and he was not a Bible. And the word of God was proclaimed by the apostles, even when some of that proclamation was not put down in writing.

We accept the fullness of the word of God. And so the reason I reject the Syllabus of Scripture tonight is not because I don't love the word of God, but because I do, and I want all of it.

Man cannot live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

And I want all the word of God, not just the written part. And if St. Paul commanded that the oral as well as the written be passed on,

Mr. White has got to prove to you tonight. He's got to show you in Scripture where that command is revoked, where he says, uh, you don't have to believe it anymore, or you don't have to obey that command anymore.

You don't have to hold fast to the written and the oral. Or he's going to have to show you that everything that was oral was finally put down in writing.

There's no Bible verse that says that. He's going to have to show you a Bible verse that says only a written vehicle can be trusted.

There's no Bible verse that says that. He's going to have to show you that only the Scripture or the Scripture itself is sufficient.

And there's no Bible verse that says that there are other things that can be said against soul scriptura.

And in fact, I've already said them that it's unhistorical. Mr. White has alluded to the argument that's often made that it's unworkable, but I am simply going to stick tonight to the

Bible and make my simple point that soul scriptura is unscriptural.

And because it's unscriptural, it must be rejected by me, by Mr. White, and by you this evening.

The burden of proof is clearly on Mr. White's shoulders to show us where the

Bible teaches soul scriptura. Quoting church fathers isn't going to do it this evening.

Because for Mr. White, these are not authorities to determine a particular principle.

And I found it rather inconsistent to use the kindest word last year when

Mr. White said, you know, what church fathers in the first six centuries, for example, taught the assumption of Mary?

As though, suppose, theoretically, Mr. White, I could have shown you, theoretically, suppose, that every single church father from the first century on did teach the assumption of Mary.

Would you, therefore, believe it? No, you would not. And, therefore, that is a complete red herring and a misdirection.

What does the Bible teach if that is the issue? I still have by mine here 40, oh,

I guess I started it late. Sorry about that. I'll sit down at this point. I'll have 12 minute rebuttals.

Why indeed would a Protestant point out that the early church fathers don't agree with Roman Catholic teaching?

Well, is it because a Protestant would have to believe the fathers are infallible and a source of religious truth?

Or is it just to demonstrate that when Rome says this is the universal and historical faith of the church that she's not telling the truth?

That's why I point to the early church fathers and point to the Roman Catholic innovations that find no basis in those fathers for just what they are.

They are innovations. Now, if you have a Bible with you, look at 2 Thessalonians chapter 2.

It seems we'll be spending some time there this evening. I seem to have guessed properly the direction that would go.

Not because, as Mr. Matitick says, I'm trying to deflect the passage at all. I'm simply trying to protect the passage from the misuse that's being made of it.

To build upon the conclusion of Paul's exhortation to the Thessalonians to stand firm in the gospel of Christ as the basis for the concept that the scriptures which are

God -breathed are insufficient without the addition of traditions. Look at what we read in verse 5.

You want to know what Paul said to them? 2 Thessalonians 2 .5. Right above this, just a few words before he gets to verse 15.

Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things?

Paul says, what I'm writing to you now is perfectly consistent and it's giving you the same information

I gave you when I was with you. You see, you've got to remember, what's got to be proven is that what

Paul orally preached is different than what's in the scripture. And that's what you're not going to find.

Now, Mr. Matitick said, there is not a single statement saying, in all of scripture, saying that scripture is the soul -inspired word of God.

And Mr. Matitick says, I only believe what is found in scripture. Where then is the statement in all of scripture that oral tradition is theanoustos,

God -breathed? I can show you where scripture is God -breathed. Mr. Matitick, show me one word, one phrase where paradosis, tradition, is theanoustos,

God -breathed. Just one, I'd like to see it. And Mr. Matitick says, Mr. White has the burden of proof.

Yes, for sola scriptura. But remember, as I said, there are two positions being presented here.

And Mr. Matitick is saying, there is another rule of faith, and if you ignore that rule of faith, you're breaking scripture.

You are breaking the command of God. Well, I'm just inviting Mr. Matitick to do what he must do to make his argument logical.

Show us this other infallible rule of faith. Let me give you an example. I've used this before. This is a pen that was given to me by my publisher a number of years ago.

It's very special to me. If I stood before you this evening and said, this is the only pen like this in the universe, how could you prove me wrong?

Well, you could go down to the local pen shop or some place like that, Office Max or whatever, and you could go find a pen just like this, and you could walk up here, and you could hold it up next to my pen and say, see,

Mr. White's claim is wrong. Here's another pen just like it. Now, I'm giving

Mr. Matitick the opportunity to absolutely blow me away in this debate. I say scripture is the only infallible rule of faith of the church.

I say scripture must be the only infallible rule of faith of the church because scripture is God speaking, and the church of Christ listens to the voice of Christ.

So all Mr. Matitick has to do is very simple. Walk up here with the other pen. Walk up here with the other infallible rule of faith.

Show us this inspired oral tradition, this God -breathed oral tradition. Just bring it up here and set it next to this one, and the debate's over.

But Mr. Matitick can't do that because there is no other inspired rule of faith.

There is nothing else that is theogonist. He can't show it to us. Mr. Matitick has indicated that I've been redefining

Sola Scriptura. I would point out that Mr. Matitick's claims to have once been a Presbyterian, and I would like to show any place in the

Westminster Confession of Faith, Jerry, where my presentation is not exactly in line with the first section, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8, where Sola Scriptura is so plainly presented in that great confession.

He says there are many times when, thus saith the Lord, there is oral preaching, and that was the word of God, yes.

And he kept saying, I had to admit this. It's not an admission. It's not like the police pulled me over and said,

OK, OK, there was, there was. It's not an admission. That's a fact. But the question is, where is

Elijah today? Even Rome says that the pope does not receive new revelation from God.

Even when speaking infallibly, he has to draw from preexisting sources. So what's the relevance today when the

Roman Catholic has to admit there's no revelation going on today? So where is it, where can I find that which is

God speaking to me? I want to know. Where is this wider word of God? If it's not found in Scripture, show it to me that it's inspired.

Show it to me that it's theionistos. That's what we need to see. Now, Mr.

Matitick said Paul was in Ephesus for three years, and you can't exactly put three years' worth of teaching into a six -chapter letter.

Of course not. Neither did he have to do so. For example, my good friend

Pastor Moore, who's with us this evening, has been preaching through the Gospel of Matthew for five years.

Am I right there? Five years! Now that may say something more about Pastor Moore than anything else, but for five years, he's been working through that Gospel.

Why is it that a man of God could stand before his people for five years and preach from one

Gospel? It's because when it's God -breathed, it is a treasure whose depth can never fully be plumbed.

And so the point of the issue is that just because Paul preached for three years does not mean that what he was preaching for two years and 350 days of that is something other than what we have in Scripture, what he included in Romans and Galatians and Ephesians.

That's the issue that we have to keep our eye on this evening. And Mr. Matitix went to Mark 7 and Matthew 15 and said, these are traditions of men, not godly traditions, but remember what

I said to you. If you'd like, and I think our moderator might appreciate this, go look at Tractate Aboth.

Go look it up in the Jewish sources themselves, and there you will find the discussion of how traditions were passed down from Moses to this great teacher to this great teacher, so on and so forth.

And that's in the same context of the Korban rule that Jesus addresses here. The simple fact of the matter is, the individuals who were accusing him of breaking the traditions of the elders believed that those traditions were divine in origin.

And what example does the Lord Jesus Christ give to everyone who would be his follower? If someone comes to you with a tradition they claim is divine,

I will hold you accountable for testing that tradition against a higher authority.

And that are the Scriptures. Those are the God -breathed Scriptures. Mr. Matitix says, when they contradict the

Word of God, we'll reject any teaching. Jerry, how can you test the teachings of Rome when you accept the idea that Rome is infallible in her teachings?

When she becomes your ultimate authority, how can you then take her teachings and test them by the

Word of God? Whenever I do that, whenever I take a teaching on purgatory or indulgences and I go to the

Scriptures, my Roman Catholic friends say, oh, that's private interpretation. You can't do that. Well then how in the world am

I supposed to follow Jesus' command to test that which is presented to me as a tradition?

How can I do that? The only way you can test something on the basis of Scripture is what?

If Scripture is your ultimate authority. That's the only way you can do it. By the way, just in passing,

Jerry, it was John Wycliffe who was the Morning Star of the Reformation, not Jan Hus. Now let's look at 2

Timothy 2 verse 2. 2 Timothy 2 was cited to us briefly.

And there are the Scriptures beginning, let's go ahead with verse 1. You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, the things that you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, and trust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Did you hear that quote? I'm not sure if Jerry gave the reference or if I just missed it. But that was the reference, that was the quotation that was being given,

I would assume, right? Okay. This passage is frequently used to say, see, here you have these oral traditions that are being passed down outside of Scripture.

What does that assume? That the things that Timothy heard Paul preach, and notice what he says, in the presence of many witnesses are not found in Scripture.

That this is some other teaching, that this is papal infallibility, which is sort of hard to believe since there wasn't a bishop in Rome at this particular time.

In fact, there was no one bishop in Rome until around the year 140, so how that could have been preached and passed on I don't know.

But this is one of the many examples of these doctrines that Rome says were in fact passed on from the apostles.

Now many Roman Catholics, by the way, people like Cufalo, John Henry, Carl Newman, they don't buy this.

They don't buy this argument that well, in fact, these are traditions that actually can be traced back to the apostles.

They recognize history does not support that. So that's where the development thesis comes from. The idea that well, the kernel was laid and then over time it developed into the tree.

The old Roman Catholic viewpoint is no, these are divine truths that were actually delivered to the apostles and passed down to the

Episcopate. Well, that just simply isn't historically the case, and I find it very interesting that Jerry would object to my pointing out that when he uses 2

Thessalonians 2 .15, he says these traditions have been handed on. It's a command that I say,

Jerry, historically no one believed the things that you believe on the basis of tradition.

If they were truly passed down orally, where is the evidence? I don't have to make

Athanasius or Augustine or anyone else an infallible rule of faith to point out that they don't agree with the

Roman Catholic perspective. Finally, and again, I think this is the real issue.

Jerry says if it can be shown to be in contradiction with the Word of God, he'll reject it. He'll reject it.

I agree with him. I stand firmly with him. I reject anything that can be shown to be contradictory to the

Word of God. But I say to you that I can only find the

Word of God in that which Paul describes as being God -breathed.

Mr. Matiticks must show me that the Scriptures point me to another rule of faith, and 2

Thessalonians 2 .15 doesn't do that. That's simply the gospel he's talking about there, and Jerry, I hold to that, and so I'm fulfilling that command.

I haven't given up on that command at all. Mr. Matiticks' entire position is based upon the idea that what

Paul's talking about there refers us to two separate sources, and I submit to you the passage doesn't teach it, and church history doesn't substantiate it, and therefore we must reject it.

Thank you. I'm trying to get this timer to work here.

Jerry. An act of Christian love. Thank you. Go down.

And you started yours, so we better stop it. The first time

I debated the issue of Sola Scriptura with an evangelical cross, it was in fact the very first debate I ever had as a fledgling

Catholic apologist, and it was against John Warwick Montgomery, a name that many of you will recognize as certainly a very prolific and illustrious evangelical thinker and writer, and it took place in Omaha, Nebraska, and I began that debate the same way

I began the last debate I had on Sola Scriptura, the most recent one before this one, and that was against a scholar at Oxford University who had been raised

Roman Catholic, was now a Protestant scholar, a tutor there, and this was in the course of a speaking tour

I had in Great Britain, and a lecture I gave at Oxford University, and at this debate on Sola Scriptura, I said the same thing

I'd said to Mr. Montgomery many years ago, and I apologize to Mr. White that I've never said it to him, but I'm going to say it to him now.

I compared my desire to sort of have a real engagement, a real interaction with kind of a

World War I aerial dogfight. I said I hope we can really get up there and soar in the sky and have a real interchange of scripture on this issue, but I said to Mr.

Montgomery, Dr. Montgomery, as I said to the scholar in Oxford, and as I say to Mr.

White tonight, until you come forth with a Bible verse which first establishes your position, then we can talk about whether the

Catholic Church has an acceptable alternative position. Until you can first establish your position, you're still down on the ground kind of taxiing and revving your motor, but I'm up here waiting for you in the sky.

Where is the Bible verse that will enable you to leave the runway and get up there and start quoting scripture in support of your view?

Mr. White had 25 minutes to make an opening statement. He had 12 minutes to make a rebuttal, and in that time, although he quoted scriptures, and although he used scriptures to refute or to attempt to refute what

I had said, he still did not and still has not, as of this time, this point right now in the evening, and I hope he will realize his need to do so to win the debate tonight, he has not given us one single verse which says scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

He's made that statement a number of times. He's quoted scripture, but he hasn't quoted any scripture in support of that statement.

Where is the Bible verse that says the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice?

We need more than Mr. White's assumption that the Bible verses that he has quoted actually are compatible with that concept.

We need a Bible verse which says something. It doesn't have to use those exact words, but it has to at least convey the concept that scripture is the only trustworthy source of God's word, or that it is sufficient, and there is no such verse.

If there is, Mr. White has only to produce it. So please, Mr. White, give us the Bible verse, and then we can really start the debate proper.

Until then, it's all just sort of ad hominem sniping. He said, what about the pen?

You know, Mr. Madison, just hold up another pen. I'm saying, he said, this is the only pen like this in the world, and that's what

I'm saying about the scripture. It's the only inspired word of God. Hold up another pen, and we'll know that my contention, he said, is not true.

I have held up another pen, and I'll hold it up again. I am holding up tonight, in more ways than one,

I hope, our Lord Jesus Christ. Is he the inspired word of God?

Were his words theopneustos? Is Mr. White claiming tonight that because St.

Paul said that all scripture is inspired, in 2 Timothy 3 .16,

a point I don't deny, that the Apostle Paul was saying only scripture is inspired, that's what the verse would need to say for Mr.

White to win. It doesn't say only scripture is inspired. It says all scripture is inspired, and that's why it's so useful for training you,

Timothy, to do your work as a man of God. Of course, no argument there. Mr.

White would have to find that verse and another verse saying that only scripture is inspired. Are you saying,

Mr. White, and I challenge you to answer this question, are you saying that Jesus' preaching was not theopneustos?

Are you saying that the preaching of the Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians or to any of his congregations was not inspired?

Are you forgetting what Peter tells us about the Old Testament prophets, when he says in 2

Peter 1 .21, that no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved or carried along by the

Holy Spirit spoke from God. I first learned from Protestant commentaries, for which I'm grateful, that the image described there is the image of the

Holy Spirit as the divine wind, because that's of course what the Hebrew word ruach, spirit, wind, means.

There's a play on words there, as the Greek word pneuma. Theopneustos means God breathed, but the

Spirit is that breath which brings the word of God to the minds of the Apostles and before them the prophets.

These men were carried along by the Holy Spirit as a boat's sails would fill with the wind and be driven along by that wind where the wind desires it to go.

Here we have a statement, the statement Mr. White was asking for, that shows that these prophets in the passage in 2

Peter 1 .21 were carried along by this divine breath.

They were inspired and for Mr. White to forget that or to conveniently leave that out of the formula is only self -serving on his part, because it proves the point that I'm making tonight.

That these prophets were carried along or moved by the Holy Spirit as they spoke.

There's the pen ladies and gentlemen. So I'm glad to hold up another pen to show you that Mr.

White is wrong, and he said if I can hold up another pen then he loses. The pen that I hold up is our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'll hold up another pen, the prophets of the Old Testament. I'll hold up another pen, the Apostles of the New Covenant.

And all of those show that Mr. White's claim that scripture is the only pen that's inspired is a false assertion, refuted by the scriptures themselves, ironically enough.

Now Mr. White misunderstood what I was saying when I was saying you haven't shown us anything about soul scripture, you're talking about the sufficiency of scripture.

I wasn't claiming that was something originating with him. He said, hey what I'm teaching is what's in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Well, I don't dispute that, but the Westminster Confession of Faith is not the rule of faith, either for Mr.

White or myself. Not the infallible rule of faith, certainly. What I'm saying Mr. White is that what you're teaching is not in line with the slogan of Martin Luther, sola scriptura, or that slogan as it was articulated either by Huss or by Wycliffe, both of whom are referred to as harbingers or forerunners or morning stars of the

Reformation. Luther was very explicit in his debt to both of them, as were the other reformers. Mr.

White says that I'm misusing 2 Thessalonians 2 .15. Why? Because according to St.

Paul there's only one body of truth. This, once again, is this age -old caricature of the

Catholic position that I am forever weary of hearing, and it ought to be laid to rest tonight.

If we're going to ever debate this again, if you're ever going to debate this again, if I'm ever going to debate this again with anybody, we've got to stop hearing that the

Catholic Church says there's two sources of truth. Mr. White himself even admitted that the

Catholic Council of Trent says that there is one word of God that is partly found in sacred scripture and partly in sacred tradition.

One word of God. One source. That ultimate source is God himself. The Church does not teach that there are two sources of truth, but it's one source of truth is conveyed in two conduits.

The written handed on word of God and the orally handed on word of God, both of which we are commanded to hand on.

The Catholic Church does not teach that the oral tradition was limited to bishops. We do not deny that it was taught in the full hearing of all people.

That's again a gross caricature and has never been found in any Catholic presentation of the critique of sola scriptura.

Mr. White says we know that everything that St. Paul wrote down, or everything that he said, he wrote down.

But how do we know that? Of course they jive.

Of course they agree. That's not the contention of the Catholic Church. We don't say that what Paul wrote down is somehow different than what he said in the sense that they are conflicting messages.

We simply say as anybody with any common sense would say, suppose none of us were Protestants or Catholics, we were simply

Buddhists tonight. Reading the New Testament or just simply atheists, typical college students, reading the

New Testament in a literature, Bible as literature course and saying, hey, St. Paul talked for three years at Ephesus.

And then we have this letter from him. Could he, did he simply reiterate the statements found in that six page letter again and again and again?

Did he never add any elaboration? Did he never amplify? Of course he did. And that amplification had to be passed on as well.

I'm not saying what he said orally is at odds with what is written down. On the contrary, the Catholic Church teaches their perfect harmony.

But certainly what he taught orally provides fuller detail, a fuller fleshing out of what is sometimes only sketched and suggested in scripture.

As for example, the example I gave of the identity of the one who withholds the man of sin, that was not written down.

There's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. So Mr. White should not confuse the issue by saying he's claiming,

Jurematics, that these are two different messages. No, I'm not. They're the same message, but one is fuller than the other because more time was spent preaching and teaching by the inspired apostles than was spent when they wrote.

We do not hold that scripture is a higher authority than the orally proclaimed word of God for the simple reason that both of them are the word of God.

And the word of God is an absolute, as Mr. White has said. And yet he's inconsistent with his own assertion.

If what Jesus preached is the word of God, if what Paul preached is the word of God, and if what

Paul wrote is the word of God, then both of them stem from the highest authority and one cannot force them to bend to it.

There's no need because they are both inspired. They're both authoritative. I'm glad that Mr.

White brought up the figure of Athanasius this evening. I will take some time,

I know I won't have time now, to read to you what Athanasius said about the Aryan heresy.

The Aryans quoted the Bible all day long. And what Athanasius said was that what they do is forget that the church has determined that Christ is of the same substance as the father of the council of Nicaea, the word homoousios.

That was his rallying cry. That shows us what the scriptures are truly teaching.

And he realized he could not simply quote scripture alone against the of the Aryans. Please proceed to tape number two.

The Great Debate II. Is the Bible the sole and fallible rule of faith for the church?

Subject, Sola Scriptura, tape number two. Mr. Matitix has offered you his pen.

I said, please show us the pen, Mr. Matitix. Show us that other

God -breathed rule of faith. And he says, here it is, it's Jesus. Okay.

Mr. Matitix, when you have your five minutes, I would like to ask you to show me a single statement or word of Jesus Christ that Rome says is inspired, that Rome says is theianustos that exists outside the

Bible. How about something from Paul? Something from Peter?

And while we're at it, since you seem to feel we need to know what Paul said during those three years in Ephesus, please produce for us from your traditions, everything he said during those three years in Ephesus.

In five minutes. That's right. You're a very fast speaker, so I think you can do that. Now, Mr.

Matitix says that, show me the one verse. You know, I talk a lot with Jehovah's Witnesses and I'm not comparing my friends with Jehovah's Witnesses.

They do not believe in the deity of Christ and so on and so forth. But at this point they keep saying, show me the

Trinity in the Bible. And I say, well, you see the Bible teaches that there is one true

God and the Bible teaches there are three persons. No, no, no. Show me the word. I'm not saying that the word is in the

Bible, but the Bible teaches there's one true God. No, show me the word. And you're not going to get very far in a situation like that, are you?

I have never claimed that the phrase sola scriptura is anywhere in the Bible. But what

I have said is the Bible teaches that we are bound to the ultimate authority of that which is theianustos and the only thing that we know is, is the

Bible. It is scripture. And that is the issue. Mr. Matitix is attempting to use an error in logic.

He's attempting to get me to prove a universal negative. You can't do that. It's Mr. Matitix who's making the positive statement, there's another one of these infallible rules and you all need to hold to it.

You all need to embrace it. Well, I hope we'll hold Mr. Matitix to one thing. He's got to show it to us first.

Show us where this infallible rule of faith is God breathed because you see

Rome wants to bind us to her authority. And there are a lot of other groups who want to bind us to their authority.

But the scripture tells us we are to go to the Bible. Now, please turn with me very quickly in two minutes and 40 seconds to second

Timothy chapter three. Paul says that all scripture is theianustos.

It is God breathed and it is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for instruction in righteousness.

For what end that the man of God might be complete, perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.

And there's much I could say on this passage that I can't even begin to say in the limited time we have. But one thing is for certain.

What the passage teaches, Mr. Matitix says, it doesn't say only scripture is theianustos. Well, the

Bible doesn't say the book of Mormon isn't inspired either, but I don't believe it is. It says scripture is

God breathed and because it is God breathed, the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Now let me ask Mr. Matitix a question. Is it a good work from his perspective to teach that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven?

If that is a good work, please show me how the Bible equips you to teach that doctrine. Is it a good work to teach that the

Bishop of Rome is infallible in his teaching office? Well, please show me where the Bible equips you by talking about the

Bishop of Rome. Oh, I know the argument. The simple fact of the matter is the scriptures are sufficient for the man of God.

There is nothing that the man of God has to preach and teach in the church that he needs any other source of authority to know and to teach with authority than what is found in the

God breathed scriptures. Peter said everything that we need for life and godliness has been given to us and yet Christians live for a thousand years without ever knowing most of the doctrines that the

Roman Catholic Church binds upon our consciences on the basis of this alleged tradition. How can that be?

The simple fact of the matter is it cannot be. Mr. Matitix says

I believe in all the word of God, but it is this wider thing. I said at the beginning, sola scriptura speaks to the church as she exists in her normative state.

What I mean by that is I am not talking about times of inscripturation. If you are going to say sola scriptura, you have to have a scriptura.

So to point out while it was preached at this time or it was prophetically given at that time, is there relevant?

We are talking about the church today. After the last apostle is gone and Rome agrees, there is no more revelation.

How do we hear the voice of God? Is it muffled? Is it uncertain? Or can we know it certainly because it is found in the

God breathed scriptures? That is what this debate is about this evening. Thank you. I think this one will work.

We will see. Well Mr.

White is at it again. He is still not giving us a verse in the Bible not that says scripture alone.

That is a caricature of what I required. I said I do not require the exact word or phrase sola scriptura.

I simply want any verse which says in whatever words it uses that scripture is the only rule of faith for us.

Whether it uses the word only or the word sufficient or it says there is no other rule other than sacred scripture.

I do not care what words are used. But where is the verse Mr. White? This verse in 2

Timothy 3 .16 and 17 is not going to work for the reasons that have been shown to you so many times.

If you look at the context here in St. Paul's letter to Timothy, he is talking about how

Timothy as St. Paul's successor there as the bishop of the church in Ephesus knew that he should remain faithful verse 14 says to what he had learned and believed because he knew those from whom he had learned it.

And from infancy he had known the sacred scriptures which were capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

What are those scriptures that St. Timothy knew from infancy? And he knew them because he had faithful parents and grandparents,

St. Paul mentions his mother and grandmother Lois and Eunice who imparted to him this faith in the scriptures.

These scriptures which he knew from infancy were the Old Testament. These scriptures were able to give him faith in Jesus Christ because they pointed forward to Jesus Christ.

He fulfilled all their prophecies. These are the scriptures that he says were inspired by God and profitable for teaching, recruitment, correction, training, and righteousness so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work.

Good work! Notice. These scriptures

St. Paul said could have an effect in Timothy's life. This was the

Old Testament. Now obviously what St. Paul says of the Old Testament would be true in spades by the time the

New Testament is completed. But in Timothy's day the New Testament wasn't completed folks. He didn't have the 27 books in front of him.

That you and I have at the time that Paul was writing this letter to him. So it's a distortion of this verse to say now that we have the completed canon we can be like Timothy.

We can follow this command of this exhortation of Paul because we have these same scriptures.

When Paul wasn't talking about the complete canon, what Timothy had was sufficient for his day.

God inspired more books obviously. Let's say the Apocalypse of St. John had not yet been written.

But Timothy could still be a man thoroughly equipped to do every good work because the

Old Testament alone tells you how to live a righteous life. That's the point.

It doesn't say that these scriptures tell you every doctrine that I've ever said. St. Paul doesn't say that.

He's reading things into this passage. In fact, how did early

Christians understand what they were to believe about Jesus Christ, about the Trinity, before the completion of the canon was accomplished in consultation after consultation and council after council culminating in the

Council of Carthage in 397. We know there were many spurious gospels circulating the church in those days.

And people had to sit down and do their homework and separate the wheat from the chaff. And the church which said these come from the apostles and their associates and these books do not is either trustworthy or not.

Mr. White can't have it both ways. If it's not trustworthy, then how do we know that we have the correct books?

St. Athanasius, who Mr. White quoted, had this to say in his letter concerning the decrees of the

Council of Nicaea and his apologetic against the Arian. He said that when the

Council of Nicaea, which met in 325, which began to solemnly define the Trinity, wrote the word homoousia, the crisis of one essence or substance with the

Father, it did it so that it might defeat the perverseness of the heretics who misquoted scripture in defense of their own views.

And St. Athanasius goes on to say that these heretics slander the Ecumenical Council because it committed to writing not your doctrines, but those which from the beginning were handed down by those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.

For the faith which the Council confessed in writing is the faith of the Catholic Church. In order to establish this, the

Blessed Fathers wrote as they did in condemning the Arian heresy. Athanasius did not follow

Sola Scriptura. He was sure that what the Council of the Church had determined was in fact that which had been faithfully handed on so that its interpretation of scripture was the correct one and the

Arian's interpretation was the incorrect one. That is the issue before us tonight, ladies and gentlemen.

Jerry, do you want me to go first or you in the questioning? We'll keep the same attitude. Okay, sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me. Okay, Mr. Matics, where has the

Church, in light of the examples you've used, you've used two examples. You talked about in 2 Thessalonians, he who restrains,

Paul not mentioning what that is in 2 Thessalonians, and then you mentioned Paul preaching for three years in Ephesus.

Where has the Church infallibly defined what Paul meant in 2 Thessalonians concerning he who restrains, and where has, how does your tradition give us the information from Paul's preaching in Ephesus that you say we somehow must have?

The question presupposes a typical misunderstanding of the

Catholic Church. It is not taught by the Catholic Church, and therefore it will not be taught by me tonight, that the

Church only passes on the tradition in dogmatic pronouncements. That is one way the

Church passes on what Christ and the apostles taught. It also passes it on in the liturgy.

It also passes it on in a whole host of writings that come to us from the fathers that do not amount to solemn definitions.

So I'll agree with you, Mr. White, but it's not injurious to my position that neither the

Council of Trent nor any other council said, if any man denies that when St.

Paul said that the, if anyone denies that the restraint that St.

Paul speaks of is this or that, let him be anathema. There is no such dogmatic definition. So if you, so then you do not have an infallible knowledge of what

Paul refers to there, do you? Are you asking, do I as an individual? Yes. I have not studied all the

Church fathers. I have not studied all that the liturgy contains. So I will admit that there are many things that have been passed on by the apostles to their successors, which can be found in the writings that I have not yet personally discovered.

I've got a lifetime of study ahead of me. So those, those alleged traditions that are passed on in regards to these very issues you brought up, you can't show us a

Theanoustos inspired element of data or knowledge that would tell us what

Paul meant or what Paul preached in Ephesus, can you? On that particular point of the man of sin, no.

I grant that I don't know everything that has been passed on. That's something

I've been doing because I have not read everything the Church fathers taught. But I can give you several examples of things that Protestants do not believe is clear in scripture that Catholics do believe was clearly passed on.

The practice of infant baptism, for example. That is Theopneustos. That was taught by Christ and the apostles.

Are there things in the tradition of the Church, things in the writings of the Father that are erroneous?

Individual fathers can make individual statements that can endure, of course.

And who determines when they're speaking the truth and when they don't? Well, the fathers have to be shown to be saying something that is taught by a consensus of the fathers.

If one father is saying something idiosyncratic, then that could be erroneous. And finally, of course, when there is a dispute, when some theologians or some later

Catholics might quote one father and some might quote another, when it's necessary the Church can meet in a solemn council, just as they did in Jerusalem in Acts 15, and say this opinion is that which was passed on by the apostles, this opinion is idiosyncratic.

So the Church hierarchy determines what is and what is not apostolic tradition in the writings of the fathers, ultimately.

The apostles exercised a governing function in the Church, which they passed on to successors, as we see in the pastoral epistles, yes.

You said that some early fathers might teach something that's idiosyncratic. Historically, for example, the majority of the early fathers, as we've discussed before, taught that Matthew 16, 18 is not in reference to Peter as the foundation of the

Church, yet a later council defined that as a dogmatic belief. How can you test the statement of the

Vatican Council, that it's the ancient and historical and universal faith of the Church, on any basis whatsoever?

How can you test what the Church says to you as a Roman Catholic and still be faithful as a

Roman Catholic? Well, you look at, first of all, the basis, because contrary again to another common misconception, the

Church cannot pull a rabbit out of a hat. When the Church says we're going to solemnly define what we have to believe about justification or baptism, what have you, there's always citation of Scripture.

No person in this room could fail to pick up the canons of the

Council of Trent, for example, and not see in the footnotes that they quote Scripture copiously in support of the assertions they make.

They can quote previous councils and previous church fathers, too. But how can you test, am

I allowed to look at the citations at the bottom of the page and say, they were wrong? Obviously, if they say something like,

John chapter 1 alludes to this or that, and in fact you look up the reference and it has nothing to do, it says nothing about Mary or baptism or wherever it is, then any reasonable person could say, wait a minute, there's some slip of the pen here or something.

But do I have the right as an individual priesthood holding believer before God to look at Roman Catholic arguments and teachings based upon tradition and say their use of Scripture is wrong?

Can I give you an example? Matthew 16, 18 is a misuse of Jesus' words to Peter to establish the papacy.

Am I wrong to say that, and if so, why? You are wrong to say that. I don't know what you mean by, do you have the right, you certainly have the freedom to look at things, and you have the freedom, obviously, and you have the freedom to come to an erroneous conclusion.

God grants us that freedom. We are free to sin. How do you know it's an erroneous conclusion? Simply because, ultimately, as you say, yes, the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

It upholds the true teaching of the word of God. And the church fathers, which did not make explicit the fact that this could have some application to Peter, do not exclude that possibility.

I think, again, many times, with all due respect, Protestant apologists sometimes say, because this church father doesn't say something about this verse that a later one does, he would have been explicitly excluding it, not necessarily.

Let's just let people know, you and I have done an almost seven -hour debate on that. They can get the tapes from either one of us if they want to find out if that's the case.

If 2 Thessalonians 2 .15 is, as you say, a command to hold on to oral traditions, and these oral traditions contain data that is outside of Scripture itself, then does it not follow that I am, in fact, consistent to ask you to be able to demonstrate to me that the

Thessalonians had delivered to them the very same doctrines that you say I must believe on the basis of tradition today?

Of course I can make the assertion that the Thessalonians had an obligation to pass on everything that Paul taught them because the command is right there in Scripture.

But if you're going to ask me for a laundry list of everything that I know was specifically taught at that congregation, you're building up a straw man.

The Catholic Church simply says everything that we do believe as a doctrine does come from the apostles, whether those things were all taught at Thessalonica or whether they were taught at Corinth or whatever.

Jerry, let me put it this way. Somewhere along the line, somebody, one of the apostles, Paul or another, taught orally to somebody in the early church that indulgences were true, right?

The principle behind them, yes. Okay, so then is it consistent then for me to ask you to show me something in the copious writings of the early church that demonstrates they had that belief?

Sure, that's perfectly legitimate. And if this were a debate on indulgences, as perhaps we ought to have,

I'd be very happy. No, excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Don't groan. This is a debate on sola scriptura, and I'm going to ask

Mr. White to defend from Scripture that thing. For him to say, now, be ready at the drop of a hat,

Mr. Matitix, without my telling you ahead of time which doctrine I'm going to bring up, you've got to give me patristic citations in support of indulgences or the bodily assumption of marriage.

I wanted to ask, Jerry, is it a valid question to ask you to define those things? Of course it's a valid question. Absolutely. And I'm willing to meet that challenge.

Now, Jerry, was Athanasius wrong in standing against the majority of the organized church of his day?

He was right to stand up for what the church had officially taught at the Council of Nicaea, even though bishops had apostatized from that faith, as the church has always admitted, individual bishops can and do err.

Jerry, were there not councils after Nicaea that condemned Athanasius? Yes or no?

No. There were none. You've not read the proceeds of any of the Arian councils that...

Oh, Arian councils, yes. I thought you said a council of the church. Yes, exactly. The next council,

Mr. White, is you, well known as the Council of Constantinople in 381, which vindicated

Athanasius. Ecumenical councils, but you have Iriminum, you have Seleucia, you have even Liberius signing the

Arianized Creed of Sirmium. In the years between 340 and 350, Athanasius is also almost alone.

Even the Bishop of Rome didn't stand with him. When the majority of the church stood against Athanasius, why then would he stand up and say, the reason

I don't accept this is because the scriptures are self -sufficient for the preaching of the truth? You, Mr.

White, give us one passage from Athanasius where he says the scriptures are self -sufficient,

Contra Gentiles 1 .1, I just gave it to you. Well, you read it out loud to the people. Do you have this? No, but I'd be happy to pay for a copy of it.

Well, I'm buying this one, I'm giving it to Jerry. I'll pay for it.

There are... But he nowhere says, Mr. White, that the scriptures are self -sufficient to establish all the doctrines.

Bring me another one, buddy. I just read you a passage of his to the contrary. So it's your turn.

Mike, could you bring me another one? Any time you want.

Yeah, I'm just trying to get this thing to work again. Put it on my tab, please. I've always wanted to say that.

I don't drink anything, so I just always wanted to put it on my tab. I'll borrow yours to make sure that I don't overstep my bounds.

Actually, I called up Great Christian Books to order this, and they said that it wasn't going to be available, so you might want to contact them.

But they said they wouldn't have until the end of June, because I wanted very much to read what you had contributed to. All right,

Mr. White, now I have ten minutes to cross -examine you. First of all, can we agree,

Mr. White, that there is, in fact, no verse in the scriptures that states that the scriptures are the only rule of faith in practice?

You might want to say, well, there's verses that say other things, but can we agree that there is no verse that does state that the scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith in practice?

The only way to agree with that statement is if you put it this way. The only places in scripture that address the rule of faith in practice identify it as scripture.

But do they state that scripture is the only rule of faith in practice? Since that's the only rule of faith in practice they present, yes.

Can you give me the verse which states that scripture is the only rule of faith in practice?

I gave it to you just a few moments ago in 2 Timothy 3, verses 16 -17, where the man of God who does the work of the ministry in the church of God is thoroughly and completely equipped for, and this is what a rule of faith is,

Jerry, for his ministry in the church by that which is theanoustos, that which is

God. Excuse me, no, I want you to quote scripture, Mr. White, for every good work it says, for every good work.

Does it say for every doctrine? No. Okay, thank you. Is doctrine a good work? I'm sorry, I can't ask questions,

I'm sorry. But I would believe doctrine. Now, well, Mr. White, if you're going to reinterpret good work and use it in the most encyclopedic, exhaustive fashion, then

I don't see why Protestants spend so much time attacking Catholics for their emphasis upon good works. Can I provide you with an answer to that?

No. That was a question, and I want to answer that question. If you're asking questions, that was a question.

That was a rhetorical question. But I'm going to give you a rhetorical answer, and that is Paul says,

Mr. White, can you give me, Reprove and doctrine in verse 16. So he defines what those words are.

Of course, that's a good work, too. Teaching and reproving is a good work. But does that verse teach scripture alone in the use of those words?

That is the only rule of faith that's given to us. Yes. You're not answering the question, Mr. White. No, if you want the word only, no, it's not there.

Okay, thank you. Just like it does not say the

Book of Mormon. Excuse me, Mr. White. Thank you for the admission. Let's move on. Does that passage say that scripture is sufficient as a rule of faith and practice?

Most definitely. Most definitely. Ex Artidso and Cat Artidso, those terms are very, very plain and demonstrating our theology is used that way.

And in fact, if you'd like, I can provide you with quotations from that good man that we just mentioned where he uses the very same terms,

Ex Artidso and Cat Artidso, to describe the self -sufficiency of scripture who is Athanasius.

I just gave you a book that not only provides you with the Greek, but also translations thereof, where over and over again, writing to the

Egyptian bishops, Athanasius says, but since Holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us, therefore commending these things, so on and so forth.

And he uses the same terms Paul uses. Okay, thank you, Mr. White. Last year, you used

Greek to confuse this audience, and I'm going to take you to task for that. Please do not do it again this year, because I'm not going to let you get away with it.

The passage here says... Was that a question? Excuse me. Yes, it is. The scripture says that, the scripture you're quoting says, scripture is inspired and profitable for various things, teaching, reproof, correction, and training of righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Where does it say that scripture is sufficient? You're taking references to the man of God, and you're applying them backwards to scripture.

Does this passage, does St. Paul say that scripture is sufficient? Yes or no, Mr. White?

Just a simple yes or no. Well, when you ask a complex question, why do you want a simple yes or no? If you stop beating your wife, that's not a valid question.

This is a valid question, Mr. White, and you know it. Jerry, have you read what I have written on this subject in my book?

I haven't read this book, because you just gave it to me. No, how about Jimmy? I have on the other ones. All right. Does this passage - And so I specifically did,

Don, I say in my book that it is the scripture that makes the man of God sufficient for his work.

Did I not say that? Yes, of course. Okay, so why say that I'm confusing someone when that's not the assertions

I've made in my own published work? But is the word sufficient in this passage by St. Paul applied to scripture?

To the man of God. Fine. Thank you for the admission. Because of scripture. That's right. But the scripture is not said to be sufficient, is it,

Mr. White? If you want to use that kind of argument, I will leave you to it. That's exactly the kind of argument I want to use, Mr. White, because you're saying we should not believe something unless it's taught in scripture.

The scripture itself does not say in this passage that scripture is sufficient, does it, Mr. White? Is the new term sufficient?

No, it doesn't. It says that scripture is sufficient - I'm going to finish that. Let's move on,

Mr. White. It says scripture - No, I'm going to finish the answer. Scripture is sufficient to equip the man of God for teaching, doctrine, reproof, and so on.

Mr. White, did the people - Did the people - Okay, please, you're cutting into my time.

Did the people in Jesus' day practice sola scriptura, the hearers of our

Lord? Yes or no, Mr. White? I have said over and over and over again that sola scriptura is a doctrine that speaks to the normative condition of the church not to times of inscription.

So your answer is no. That is exactly what my answer is. Thank you. It is no. Did the apostles practice sola scriptura,

Mr. White? Yes or no? No. Thank you. Did the successors to the apostles,

Mr. White, practice sola scriptura only believing - Did Timothy only believe what Paul had written him?

Wait a minute. Successors. Did he practice - The first generations who were alive during the period of inscription.

Again, as you should know as a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary -

Just a simple yes or no. You are asking every question of a straw man. I said in my opening statement - No, I'm asking you, Mr.

White. It speaks of times after the inscripturation of scripture. Thank you,

Mr. White. So I'm glad to affirm everything you said. Very good. So, Mr. White, you admit then that Jesus didn't practice sola scriptura.

I asserted it. His hearers do not. The apostles do not and their successors do not.

And yet, you want to persuade this audience that they should depart from this pattern for reasons that you believe are sufficient and now adopt a different methodology.

Exactly. Let me finish. Let me answer your question. I'm simply getting a clarification from you.

No, you're making an assertion in the form of a clarification. In your final statement you'll have a chance to show why we should depart from that rule of faith that the people of our

Lord No, no, no. That is not a clarification. I did not say it was a rule of faith. I don't believe the Mormons are receiving revelation today either.

I suggest that they not try to think that they are living in a time when revelation is being given. But that's not the issue,

Mr. White. Oh, it is the issue. No, we both agree that revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle. Exactly. So what's the rule of faith for?

When we see revelation or when we're not receiving revelation? What's the rule of faith? The rule of faith is both when we're receiving revelation and after revelation is completed because a rule of faith is a constant condition in the church.

Let me ask you, Mr. White, this simple question. Is there anywhere in the

Bible itself an inspired table of contents? No, there's not. Thank you. So we have no since only what is taught in Scripture according to what you've been claiming tonight is something that we can be infallibly sure of That's right.

Then we cannot be infallibly sure that we have the right books in our Bible by your own logic. Is that correct?

Actually, if you'd care to read the section on the canon of Scripture in the book, there's an excellent discussion of that. Would you answer that question?

I'm trying to do so, sir. Discussing the canon of Scripture, in fact, that would be a good topic for a debate sometime in the future too.

However, this canon of Scripture, there's two types. There's that which God creates by inspiration which is infallible and known to him infallibly, obviously.

And there is the canon of Scripture which we know which is a fact of revelation which we then have to have knowledge of.

But it's not infallible. No, my knowledge of it is not infallible. No, I'm not asking that. The canon is, but my knowledge is not infallible.

in your Bible, there is a table of contents. Is there not? Yes. Is that table of contents theopneustos?

No. And therefore, according to your own logic, you cannot be infallibly sure that that table of contents is absolutely trustworthy.

Yes or no? No. I can have just as much assurance that you have that it's absolutely trustworthy. Thank you.

But you admit, therefore, that that is itself not infallible. No, of course not. No. I'm sorry.

I was agreeing with your statement. You misunderstood what I said. Right. No, but what you're saying is that the table of contents, the list that we have of the 27 books of the

New Testament What I'm saying is the exact same thing Sproul says in here. Thank you for the admission. Anna Gerstner had said before Sproul says we have a fallible collection of infallible books.

And what does that mean, Jerry? Well, I'll tell you what it means in my closing statement. But for now

I'm asking you questions. I'm not answering yours, Mr. White. I have ten minutes to ask you questions.

And I'm answering your questions. No, you're asking me what does that mean. And that's Well, if you want to leave it hanging so that no one knows what it means, that's fine with you.

You've got a closing statement and you're cutting into mine. But I'm trying to finish your question. You just made a statement about my knowledge of the canon.

My knowledge of that divine revelation You're repeating yourself. You've already stated that.

Mr. White, the Catholic Do you agree that the Catholic claims that he has an infallible knowledge of the contents of the

Bible because the Church has infallibly declared that? Yes, he claims that. So your statement a minute ago that you and I are forced to have the exact same levels of certainty is not a correct

Not at all. It's a perfectly correct representation. Because you have chosen to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome and your choice was a fallible choice and therefore anything that follows after that can have no more certainty than the fallible choice you made to sign over your responsibility to another authority that can then answer all the tough questions for you.

But haven't you done the same thing? to follow Rome was a fallible choice. Just as your decision to follow the

Bible is a fallible choice to be honest. The decision is a fallible one.

That's all I'm asking him to reiterate. I do not The Bible's not infallible. The Bible's not fallible.

I do not claim infallibility. Thank you. It is a fallible decision. I have decided to follow what is

Theanustos and I ask you to do the same. I agree. Seven minutes closing.

Did we lose our moderator? I think we did lose the moderator but I think

Chris is a big enough guy to keep us in line. I'll go ahead and announce it.

We're now going to have seven minutes closing statements. I'll go first and then

Jerry and then as I believe we lined it out at that point in time we will have audience questions and you

I'm sure can get up and handle the moderation duties or somebody I don't know Jerry you have something you'd rather do or whatever

I don't know. Chris is fine. There are many passages

I would like to share with you this evening early fathers and others I just want to share one with you

Bob has said this If they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them therefore

Stop your watch for a second and put the video camera where it's supposed to be. Let me go back to that again.

If they reject this we are clearly not bound to follow them therefore let God inspired scripture decide between us and on whatsoever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth.

Many today seek what I call the infallible fuzzies that's what we were just talking about yet every one of us sitting here this evening is a fallible human being a fallen human being capable of making mistakes in our decisions and actions

The decisions Mr. Matitix made to embrace the ultimate authority of Rome which then can give him allegedly infallible certainty of the canon for example the same infallible certainty that he has of indulgences purgatory and the bodily assumption of Mary was a fallible decision on his part

Now there are many who offer you infallible certainty I was up on the World Trade Center right down there

I could see the watchtower over there in Brooklyn Heights They offer you infallible certainty

My friends up in Salt Lake City offer you infallible certainty and I've met many a person who's embraced their infallible authorities and hence look at scripture and say well it clearly says this it clearly says that when in point of fact they are driving their beliefs from some other system

Roman Catholicism has no more Jerry's decision to embrace

Roman Catholicism has no more certainty than the first decision he made that day he decided to follow

Rome and you may say as Jerry said ah but Mr. White you too have your ultimate authority you have chosen the

Bible and that is correct he is exactly right we've gotten to the point the difference between us is just this

Jesus described this book the Bible as God speaking in Matthew 22 he subservient all traditions to it in Mark 7

Peter said holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit resulting in this book and Paul said it is the very breath of God it is that is the object of my decision

Rome is not Theanustos it is not infallible history shows us that the tradition Mr.

Matic wishes to bind us to has erred many times both in the person of the

Pope such as in the case of Liberius Honorius Sixtus and a host of others and in the wider councils such as when the council of Constance burned

Jan Hus for being an evangelical Christian or when the fourth Lateran council gave indulgences to those who would take up the sword to kill

Heretics Mr. Matic's tradition doesn't pass the test of being Theanustos it is not infallible every person here this evening must make a decision concerning their ultimate authority

I choose the God -breathed scriptures and I stand with Jesus Peter Paul and all the believers down to the ages who have been led by the

Holy Spirit of God to make that choice you have a choice to make too every one of you

God holds every person responsible for his truth every one you have the responsibility to handle properly his truth and obey it what will you do with that responsibility

God says in his word that we are to be workmen rightly handling the word of truth not the word of tradition the responsibility is not placed upon just one man or councils of men but upon each of us you can make the choice to hand over your responsibility to someone else but that does not rid you of your responsibility if you are misled by that person or group or church you will not be able to say but God this person told me to believe that I've made my choice how about you

I join the psalmist who found God's word a lamp to his feet and a light to his path and with Paul who said the scriptures are capable of making one wise into salvation which is in Christ Jesus how about you this evening

I'd like to close there are so many things I would like to say I'd like to just close with some words of Augustine and I'd love to talk more about Athanasius do something for me read

Athanasius that's not Athanasius that's Jurgens Jurgens is a quote book just sections read

Athanasius directly read how he defended the truth against Arianism you will never ever find him saying well the bishop of Rome says or the apostolic tradition that exists outside the

Bible says you won't find him doing that I want to close with the words of Augustine you ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the scriptures against treacherous errors a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a

Christian for when he offered himself to them to touch this did not suffice him unless he also confirmed the heart of the believers from the scriptures he's talking about when

Jesus appeared listen here for he foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read

Augustine felt that the very offer of the Lord Jesus to his disciples to touch him was not enough he then went on and confirmed their faith from the scriptures because he knew the day would come when we as believers cannot walk up and touch the risen

Lord physically but we have a sufficient testimony to that truth my friends and it's right here you have a choice to make every one of you will your ultimate authority be that which is

God breathed or will you accept the claims of certain men and organization who say well we have more we have these other things that are also

God breathed we can't really show them to you directly but we've got them and you need them that's the decision you're faced with this evening thank you for coming out thank you for being here this is a good place to be tonight because at least

Jerry and I agree on one thing I think he's dead wrong and he thinks I'm dead wrong and we're not sitting up here saying well brother

I'm just sort of glad we can all get along this is an important issue my friends let's think about it together thank you applause please turn the tape to side two applause um my brothers and sisters ladies and gentlemen

I began with a command of sacred scripture to hold fast to all the tradition the handed on teaching of the apostles whether it comes by word of mouth or by epistle and then

I quoted our Lord saying there's a very real possibility that one can follow a tradition of man that negates or undermines the commandment of God I have sought to show you tonight that the concept of sola scriptura is just such a tradition of men because as Mr.

White has admitted the phrase sola scriptura is not found anywhere in scripture now that's not enough to show that it's wrong

I'm not claiming that the word trinity isn't there either the phrase that scripture is sufficient is not found in scripture

Mr. White sought to whip out a couple of Greek words and I think there was a possibility people might have been confused there because there's something stated about the man that is not stated about the scripture itself and I think we have to be careful

Mr. White and it always amazes me that Protestants who are upset that they accuse the

Catholic Church of having hid the scriptures from the people in the common language often times even

Protestants will try to use Greek in a way to mislead people it happened as I said last year when

I pointed out in Matthew 125 that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus and I pointed out that the word until doesn't always mean that there's a change after that point

I showed you several places where in the New Testament the word haos translated until indicates there is no change after that point

Mr. White said but what about haos who isn't there any place in the

Bible where haos who is used to indicate no change and I was taken aback because no

Protestant has ever used that argument for a very simple reason because when I got home and I looked up haos who in a concordance to the conclusion that haos who is used by St.

Matthew because he says Joseph I never listened with her until she gave birth a conjunction takes a verbal clause after it it's not a preposition and Mr.

White was saying well the reason St. Matthew didn't use haos who is because he wanted to make clear that there was in fact a change after that when the reason he doesn't use it is because it's followed by a verbal clause and not by a noun which a preposition takes

I see the same sort of thing happening here because the Greek words that Mr. White quotes do not in fact and you can come up here and look for this yourself you can ask any

Protestant Greek scholar to if you don't know Greek to verify from their dictionary their lexicon their concordance their

Greek grammar and I've brought other reference works as well that that is in fact the case the fact is

I don't care whether you're speaking Greek or English the message of the scriptures here is clear that the scriptures are not told we are not told that they are sufficient that they alone are sufficient

Mr. White says that they alone are theopneustos he says the church isn't well the

Catholic church doesn't claim to be inspired by God that's another misconception but it does claim to be that pillar and foundation of the truth that faithfully upholds the word of God whether that word is oral or written

Mr. White said you've accused me Mr. Mattocks of choosing the Bible well I am proud to choose the

Bible but that again is a false dichotomy I choose the Bible too Mr. White I don't say you choose the

Bible I choose the church this idea that we teach sola ecclesia is a caricature the

Catholic church believes that every single syllable in the Bible is breathed out by God it is binding it is infallible it is inerrant and you must believe every word of it but the

Catholic church because it knows the Bible because it loves the Bible because the Catholic church copied the

Bible again and again throughout the middle ages it was the church which produced the

Bible when it's officers the apostles and their associates wrote these inspired books it was the church which separated the true books from the false and said here is a canon a reliable collection that you can know gives you inspired words we're not mixing any wheat with the chaff we're not giving you uninspired books like the

Gospel of St. Thomas or the Gospel of St. Peter which were not written by St. Thomas or St. Peter or they would have been inspired too the church is that which gave you the

Bible and I hope if you have bought Protestant books this evening and I'm glad that you will take them and study them and you should get

Mr. White's book or the book that he I guess has participated in a symposium this by the way is a quote book too

I agree with him read the unexpurgated Athanasius read the whole treatises but you will get a lot more quotes of Athanasius in the three volume set that you referred to Jurgens there are three volumes that will give you all of their classical statements on a wide variety of issues

I think anyone who picked this up would find out very quickly that St. Athanasius who was a bishop of Alexandria and St.

Augustine who was a bishop of Hippo did not teach that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice

I would gladly send a thousand dollars to anyone in this audience who can read this

Mr. White's book or the complete works of Athanasius or St. Augustine and find any place where they teach sola scriptura of course they teach that the

Bible is true and that various preachings and teachings must be compared with the

Bible of course everything must comport with the Bible the

Catholic Church doesn't deny that the Catholic Church doesn't say oh no we teach traditions which are in contradiction of the

Bible those teachings can be corroborated by sacred scripture and that is what

Catholic apologetics is all about but read those and you can purchase these at that table but I hope that you would pick up this book where we got the

Bible our debt to the Catholic Church it was the Church which collected this book it was the fact that the

Catholic Church did its work that resulted in the fact that every Protestant here has a Bible in their hands tonight that you have the right book the

Church translated that Bible into the vernacular long before the Protestant Reformation 14 editions of the

Bible into German before Luther ever did his I, excuse me excuse me

I have chosen the Bible as well but I choose the Word of God which is not restricted to the

Bible I choose the Bible and what the Apostles taught that did not get put down because I want the full

Word of God and I pray that you you ladies and gentlemen make that same choice yourself that you reject the heresy of Sola Scriptura because it is in fact not taught in sacred scripture thank you very much we are going to take something called questions last year when we did this it kind of got a little ugly because we had about 500 preachers in the room and we don't want that I don't want to hear any

Protestant or Catholic preachers right now other than these two men we are going to hear questions from people so if the things coming out of your mouth don't begin with who, what, where, why or when or how

I'm going to have to go sorry and they have 30 seconds yes you have 30 seconds to ask the question there will be a 90 second response and a 45 second rebuttal and they need to identify specifically who they are asking so we know who to identify who the questions are thank you at the beginning why not here because the microphone is back there so why not in the back of the room if you want to ask a question

I'm sorry be careful of the video camera though please go this way don't go near the camera go the other way don't imitate me go this way alright we'll take the first question

I'd like to thank both gentlemen for their work and preparation for this presentation

I'd like to ask a question on the semantics if I could since I've come to study knowledge of Jesus two switches

I'm very fond of I'd like to have your opinion around this on me first is Matthew 7 2 5 which says

Christ is our creator and the second is Matthew 16 15 where Jesus is speaking to Peter and says

I know the traditions of men say that I am so who do you say that I am Peter okay that's a lot of questions in 90 seconds

I'll try to do my best of course Jesus saves us by grace through faith even

Mr. White sitting up here would agree that the Catholic Church at least formally teaches that now he might want to argue that what they go on to do seems to undermine that but the

Catholic Church agrees that we are saved by grace by grace and we are saved through faith although we are not saved through faith alone sola fide is another doctrine of men which is refuted by scripture because James says in 224 we're justified by faith by works and not by faith alone which caused

Martin Luther to say this is a direct quote in his works volume 4 page 317 quote the epistle of James gives us much trouble if they will not admit my interpretations then

I will also make rubble of it I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove that was his reference to the teaching of that inspired apostle and of course he cut it out of his canon 1st

Timothy 2 5 teaches the very biblical doctrine which has been reiterated by every Catholic council on this issue and if you read the documents of Vatican 2 they quote 1st

Timothy 2 5 in the passage on Mary and the dogmatic constitution on the church which they say Jesus is the only unique mediator between God and man because he alone is

God and man but if you look at the context in chapter 2 verse 1 St. Paul says he urges that supplications and prayers and intercessions be made for everyone and nobody in a

Protestant prayer meeting when they get up and say would you pray for me you don't have a bunch of Protestants jumping up and saying you don't need us praying for you you've got

Jesus as your all sufficient mediator mediation of Jesus does not conflict with our interceding for one another and nor does it conflict with Mary or any other

Christian in heaven praying for us as well. Mediation and intercession are not the same things when we talk about who

Jesus Christ is. Mr. Matics and I debated Mary last year in regards to some of the prayers that are used of Mary.

I'd refer you to those. We've also debated justification. We did so at Boston College. I'd refer you to those particular tapes as well.

I would say just two things. First of all James 2 is talking about a dead faith not a living saving faith.

It's a misuse of the passage and so much for the infallibility of Luther and secondly the issue in regards to salvation has never ever ever been the necessity of grace.

It has always always always been the sufficiency of grace. Alright our next question please.

Yes my name is Nathan Gonzalez. I'm also a Protestant and I heard both of you men quote

Excuse me who is this addressed to? Mr. Matics. Okay thank you. I heard both of you men quote 2

Thessalonians 2 verse 15 but Mr. Matics failed to tell me what he believed the tradition in regards to salvation because we have to understand that every time we see a day of fall we have to find out what that day of fall is there for and if we go back to verse 10 we'll find that it refers to truth.

Verse 12 truth. Verse 13 truth. Verse 14 it explains what is the truth the gospel.

Verse 15 it explains how they received the gospel by word or efficiency.

What do you believe in Thank you for the question.

Again it seems to indicate to me a confusion on the part of the Protestant critic of Catholicism that Catholics believe that these traditions are not good news or that they are not truth.

That we have a gospel we have truth and maybe that's put down writing and then we have other things that are not good news that are not true.

That is a character of the Catholic position. Of course everything that the Catholic believes whether it's written down explicitly or whether it was handed on by the apostles of the successors such as the legitimacy of infant baptism because it's the counterpart to circumcision in the

Old Testament or the role of the bishop in the church or other things that St. Athanasius and St.

Augustine believe that Mr. White would reject. He quotes them and yet I could show you all kinds of doctrines that he would admit they teach that he thinks are wrong.

When we believe those things we believe that those are truth. That they are good news.

And so I don't see the problem. The problem only exists in the mind of the Protestant when he thinks that we're adding to the gospel but everything that the apostles taught is gospel, is good news, is a proclamation that we belong to Jesus Christ.

They certainly taught that grace was sufficient as Mr. White just said. That is a caricature of the

Catholic to say that grace is not sufficient. We don't add to grace. Everything that the Catholic does, whether he is baptized or whether he prays or whether he does good works out of obedience to Jesus Christ who said if a man loves me he will keep my commandments.

Those are all done by grace. So it's grace from start to finish. You're saying that tradition in there means grace?

I'm saying that it means the truth and the gospel that he just referred to. Ok, now we'll have a 45 second rebuttal.

I believe the passage is very plain in stating that what we are committed to hold on to is the gospel message which is defined for us in scripture.

To use this passage as Mr. Mattocks has used it is to say that such doctrines as purgatory, indulgences, the bodily assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility are a part of the gospel that were delivered to the

Thessalonians. And I keep saying over and over again, if you're going to make that assertion, if you're going to say that this is actually what was delivered to them, you're going to say that this is actually what was delivered to If you're going to make that assertion, if you're going to say them, if you're going to what was delivered to delivered to them, say that this is actually what was delivered to what was delivered to It says here that doctrines that A part of the gospel message the context of the passage, what is it that thoroughly equips me, as a man of God, for every good work, but what is the context of the passage?

Very good. The answer is very simple. That's not a problem in the Catholic position.

The answer is that Scripture equips the man of God for every good work. Thank you.

But, well, I get 90 seconds. Laughter Scripture equips the man.

We don't deny it. Every time a Catholic learns Scripture, memorizes Scripture, reads the Bible, believes the

Bible when it's preached from the pulpit, he or she... I don't know if that's sufficient. Let me answer your question, please.

I've got 90 seconds. That person is being equipped. But this verse, and no other verse in the

Bible, says that Scripture is the only thing that can equip you. Earlier, in this very same letter,

St. Paul talks to Timothy and uses the same language of being equipped by, you know, making sure that a man cleanses himself.

In, for example, 2 Timothy chapter 2, if a man cleanses himself from these things, and you'd have to look at all the weaknesses that he outlines in chapter 2, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful for the

Master, prepared for every good work. So, Timothy's own sanctification is also something that equips him for every good work.

The exact same Greek phrase, if Mr. White wants to trot out the Greek, that is used in the next chapter.

So, Scripture has its part to play, but so does sanctification, so does prayer, so do all the virtues.

You can't simply say, all I need is Scripture, I don't need to pray, or I don't need to witness. That's not what

I'm saying. And that, therefore, refutes the idea of sola scriptura, that Scripture is sufficient to prepare us for every good work.

It only does its work in tandem with all the commands of God, including the command, read 1

Timothy 2 .21. I'm not sure if anyone else has caught the specifics of Mr.

Matitix's accusations against me in regards to trotting out Greek. The Bible is written in Greek, and the

Greek language is very important, and yes, I have presented various elements of the language. Unfortunately, Mr.

Matitix hasn't bothered to tell us exactly where I'm supposedly wrong here. But Mr. Matitix is wrong in what he just said about the

Greek. And that is, it does say every good work, but the word prepared is different, Jerry, in the two places.

The one that you cite that says you refute sola scriptura is a moral term, and in 2

Timothy, the passage is talking about reproof, correction, doctrine. Two completely different contexts between the two.

Next question, please. Who is this for? Mr. Matitix, the

Bible says that the ashes in the body are to be chosen by the Lord, but the church says it's the purpose body.

The Bible says that God created man in his own image, and from his ribs, from Adam's ribs, he made

Eve. And then he also created the earth from the son of David. Now the church is saying that they decide to believe in the theory of evolution.

What is your ultimate authority? Is it the church, or is it the Holy Scriptures? What do you fall back on?

Do you believe what man says, or do you believe what the Bible says? My ultimate authority, to answer your question, is

God. And all that God says is my authority, whether that word of God is written, or whether it is orally transmitted.

That's not what I mean. I mean, does the Catholic Church go to the

Scriptures for their ultimate authority, or to the church? Not your ultimate authority.

That's not answering my question, that's getting around the issue. My question is, do you take the

Scriptures as your sole authority, or do you take the church? Because if the church goes back to the

Scriptures... Obviously, you must understand from hearing the debate tonight, that I do not take the

Scriptures as my sole authority. That's what you just asked me. I'm going to reiterate what I've been saying all along. For the simple reason that the

Scriptures themselves do not tell me to. They tell me to hold fast to all the word of God, whether it's written or oral.

Now, let me reiterate, ma 'am, please listen carefully, that everything that the Catholic Church teaches, it can confirm by Scripture.

It can corroborate with Scripture. The Catholic Church is not teaching now, ma 'am, that evolution is true.

That's a misunderstanding. I will grant you that there are liberals who are convinced that evolution is true.

Even the recent statement of John Paul II in October to the Pontifical Catholic Church did not say, that's it, evolution is a fact, it's been established as a fact.

I, as a traditional Catholic, hold the view that Catholics have classically held that there is no way of reading

Genesis 1 -3 in an evolutionistic fashion without doing violence to the text of Scripture. So, yes,

I do go to Scripture and say, is this Scripture being twisted or is it being handled properly?

Now, your previous question, before the one on evolution, was about purgatory, and you put it a certain way that I'm trying to remember now,

I'm sorry. Yes, thank you. The Church, the Bible does not, we have to listen to what the

Bible says, not what we think it says. Paul doesn't say that's true of all individuals, he says that's true of himself.

He says he is willing to die so that he might be present with the Lord, and the Church has always taught that anyone who dies for Christ as a martyr's death would indeed, because they show that they love

Christ supremely, go to Heaven. But the good news, which Mr. White said purgatory is not, is that Heaven is a prepared place for prepared people, and if I were to die with sinful habits,

I need to continue my sanctification so that I do not... I'm sorry, we're out of time on this one.

Forty -five seconds. Forty -five second rebuttal by James White. I don't believe that the idea of sadaspatio, which is the suffering of atonement in purgatory, is good news because of one simple reason.

Jesus Christ bore my sins in his body on the tree, and that includes, wait, wait, wait, wait, that includes the punishment of those sins, and therefore the idea that I must undergo a cleansing punishment in purgatory before entering into the presence of God is anti -scriptural.

But it brings us back to the real point. How can a Roman Catholic who believes the Church is infallible, and believes that only the

Church can give you a true interpretation of Scripture, test the teaching of the Church by Scripture? The answer is very simple.

He can't. It is a circle that is vicious in its very form. We hope you've enjoyed listening to The Great Debate II.

Is the Bible the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church? If you'd like more information about Alpha and Omega Ministries, you can write us at P .O.

Box 37106, Phoenix, Arizona, 85069.

Or you can also find us on the Internet at www .aomin .org.

That's www .aomin .org. Thank you, and God bless.